San Bernardino council moves to ban short‑term rentals in residential zones after fire‑safety and nuisance complaints

The San Bernardino City Council voted 4–3 on April 15 to introduce an ordinance (MC1661) that would ban short‑term rentals in residential zones, after a lengthy public hearing in which residents described parties, blocked roads, and fire‑safety risks in hillside neighborhoods.

Supporters of a ban said STRs in narrow, single‑access neighborhoods have produced recurring public‑safety incidents and that enforcement capacity is limited. Resident Jose Gomez said a house on Skyllock and Edgerton “had over a thousand people” at a Halloween 2025 party that blocked the single access road and impeded firefighters. “We are a fire‑rated area — anything can happen,” Gomez told the council.

Hosts and small operators urged regulation rather than an outright ban, saying the activity provides critical income for local families and small service providers. “This business has given me the ability to be a fully present, full‑time mom while still providing for my family,” short‑term rental operator Guadalupe Ortega said. Several hosts urged registration, 24‑hour contact requirements and platform cooperation to remove bad actors.

Staff presented three paths: (1) adopt a comprehensive regulatory program with registration, inspections and a potential transient occupancy tax (TOT); (2) ban STRs in residential zones (staff suggested limiting bans to high‑fire areas as one option); or (3) take no action. Staff said roughly 108 properties were currently listed on STR platforms in the city and estimated potential registration fees of $500–$775 per property (depending on inspection frequency) and a possible annual TOT revenue of up to $324,000. A vendor described in the staff presentation (referred to in materials as Deca/Decarder Technology) would provide ongoing listing detection and data services; staff noted a vendor base cost quoted in the report of roughly $16,500 annually for monitoring (as presented to council).

Council members split over whether the city had enough enforcement capacity and whether a geographically limited ban would simply displace problems to other neighborhoods. After substitute motions and extended debate, Council Member Shereet moved to introduce and read by title only Ordinance MC1661 (ban in residential zones); Council Member Ortiz seconded. The roll call vote was: Sanchez — No; Barara — No; Figueroa — Yes; Shereet — Yes; Mayor Pro Tem Canas — No; Flores — Yes; Ortiz — Yes. The motion carried 4–3, advancing the ordinance introduction step.

The council also discussed administrative steps before implementation: if the ordinance proceeds, staff said the city would rely on vendor listing detection, CRM complaint coding, and dedicated code‑enforcement follow up. Staff reiterated that a ban or regulation would both require increased enforcement resources to be effective.

What happens next: the council introduced the ordinance for first reading; subsequent readings and an adoption vote would be required to make a ban permanent. Until an ordinance is adopted, short‑term rental activity remains governed by existing municipal code and enforcement channels.

Sources: Public hearing testimony and staff presentation to the San Bernardino City Council, April 15, 2026; city staff figures and vendor descriptions presented during the hearing. The article attributes remarks to speakers who self‑identified in the transcript (e.g., Jose Gomez; Guadalupe Ortega).